ArticleFrontiers in urology2026
Transperineal versus transrectal systematic prostate biopsy in routine clinical practice: a real-world comparative study.
Article in Frontiers in urology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Prostate biopsy is the reference standard for confirming prostate cancer in men with clinical suspicion. The transrectal (TR) route is widely used but carries a risk of infectious complications and may sample anterior regions less effectively. Transperineal (TP) biopsy has emerged as a safer alternative with lower infectious risk. However, real-world comparative evidence between the routes is limited in some settings. The objective is to compare the diagnostic yield, tissue quality, and complications of systematic TR versus TP prostate biopsy in a Moroccan tertiary center. Methods: In this retrospective study, 139 men with suspected prostate cancer underwent systematic biopsy via TR or TP biopsy. Analyses were restricted to systematic cores. Biopsy quality was assessed by median core length. Complications were graded using the Clavien-Dindo classification. Results: A total of 139 men underwent systematic biopsy. Baseline clinical characteristics were similar across most variables, except DRE, between groups. TP yielded a longer median core length than TR (p = 0.02). In contrast, detection rates of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) were similar (40.3% for TR vs 38.9% for TP). Several clinical factors were associated with csPCa detection, including higher PSA, higher PSA density, suspicious DRE, and higher PI-RADS category. In contrast, anterior lesion location was associated with a lower risk of csPCa. Regarding complications, infectious complications were more common after TR biopsy (7.5% compared to 1.4%). Additionally, acute urinary retention was seen in 6.0% of TR cases and 8.3% of TP cases. No Clavien-Dindo grade III or higher events were reported. Conclusion: TP systematic biopsy provides csPCa detection comparable to TR biopsy, yields longer cores, and shows a lower observed rate of infectious complications, supporting TP adoption to reduce infectious morbidity without compromising diagnostic performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.